Thus, even if Hahnemann had denied the usual natural healing, he would not have been wrong in drawing upon this special case of yealing of a diseases through a second disease. In the sense of Hahnemannian views, it is in no way illogical to place a second similar stimulus of a disease in comparison with the healing through a “drug disease”; so much the less since this second disease is not arranged by “nature” in order to heal the first, but appears, so to speak, “accidentally.” Accordingly it is not concerned with a natural healing in the causal sense. But since Hahnemann does not deny the natural power, here again from a double basis the reproach of Neuburger is essentially pointless.
Neuburger in this reproach of Hahnemann on account of the “denial of healing power”continues the old idea which has become customary in opposition to Hahnemann. Likewise the famous Haeser wrote in his textbook “The History of Medicine” (1 Aufl. Jena, 1845, p.685): “This complete denial or much more shameless impudent scoffing denial or much more shameless impudent scoffing of natural activity in the curative process forms an essential basis of the Hahnemannian doctrine.”.
This citation seems all the more remarkable since the natural scientific direction of Haeserss time, indeed the more consequent it was, the less it was concerned with a natural healing power. What then would Haeser have said to the “shameless, impudent scoffing,” which Goldscheider has reported: ” surgeon well known in his time once said to me: “A surgeon well known in false, it is only the surgeon who brings the failures into order” (D.M.W., 1932, P.920).
The judgment of Haeser may incidentally serve as a small test for the tone of tone in which one at that time answered to such “shameless impudent scoffing” by Hahnemann. Moreover, the sentence in incorrect because of how little significance the apparent denial of the natural healing power by Hahnemann was, one may see from the Wolfs Thesis, which were unanimously adopted at the Central Convention of 1836, during Hahnemanns lifetime. They read: “Hahnemann, it is true, has not denied the natural healing power but he depicts its action as universally not worthy of imitation and seldom sufficient.
This opinion of Hahnemann is as every one knows, not shared by most homoeopaths.” One perceives from this that the depreciating opinion of Hahnemann is, as every one knows, not shared by most homoeopaths.” One perceives from this opinion of Hahnemann is, as every one known, not shared by by most homoeopaths.” One perceives from this that the depreciating opinion which Hahnemann had expressed at times on the natural healing power, viewed historically, has played only as insignificant role.
The well-known Griesselich, one of the leaders of the critical direction in homoeopathy, reports from personal experience the position of Hahnemann in his old age, in the year of 1832: “One has often reproached Hahnemann for his contempt of the natural healing power:I earlier was also puzzled, when I read that which stands in the Organon. . . .In speaking with Hahnemann I have noted nothing denying this power, It appears as though the reformer had given occasional for misunderstanding” (Skizzen aus der Mappe eines reisenden Homoopathen,” 1932,p.35).
Thus in a summary one may also represent that Hahnemann throughout his whole life was a vitalist and correspondently always recognized the vital force through naturally in his view of disease as a dynamic alteration of the vital power he considered it chiefly as health maintaining while he considered it chiefly as health maintaining, while he considered its accomplishment in disease-because according to his view it became ill itself-as insufficient, since it could only reestablish health by the doing so occurred. He has never denied the vital force (natural healing) in disease, he held it indeed as a necessary condition for the direct healing, whose other condition is he dynamic homoeopathic drug.
This standpoint he held with varying clarity and indeed according tot he connection, in varyingly strong emphasis of the cooperation of the vital force. The contradictions present are mostly unless often logically failures than variations psychologically explainable in that in the heat of a fight; he valued the role of the natural healing power differently when he spoke on homoeopathic healing or when he spoke of the allopathic.
XII.LEIPZIG.
(1811-1821).
After Hahnemanns Chief work, the “Organon of Rational Healing,” had matured in the quiet small town of Torgau and had appeared in the first half of 1810, Hahnemann felt the urge to become active through personal teaching in the extension of his new theory of healing which should throw over the old.
For this reason he would again be nearer the centers of science and had in the first line, as in seems, considered going to Goottingen. In a letter of January 30, 1811, to Charles Villiers, the well-known intermediary between German and French spiritual life who then lived in Gottingen, he writes (L.P.,Z.f.H., 1880, p.46):”Some months ago I disclosed my wishes to the good father H. . . e. But as a reply he writes me a woeful letter the contents of which I do not entrust to paper.
“I should not yearn that way.” Your can imagine the rest for yourself.”: Since at an earlier place Hahnemann wrote to Villiers of “my good father Heyne who was wrote to Villiers of “my good father Heyne who was very kind of “my good father Heyne who was very kind to me during my stay in Gottingen,” one will also think of Heyne for H.c. c.e, with whom he had been in friendly relationship during his stay in Go in 1794. Heyne is the famous professor of ancient languages and antiquity. Perhaps Hahnemanns interest in languages associated him with Heyne.
Since Gottingen thus no longer came into consideration for Hahnemann he again turned his eyes to Leipzig. As the second factor for this renewed movement Hahnemann mentions in letters that he would have Torague out of regard for the safety of his family in order to remove them from the dangers of war, since Torgau was to be built into a strong fortress at the command of Napoleon. At the end of August, 1811, he moved to Leipzig.
In December, 1811, there appeared in the “Allegmeine Anzeiger the communication that he would hold lectures for physicians in a “Medical Institute” on his doctrine on the basis of the Organon as well as with practical work on patients. But apparently he did not obtain a sufficient number of participants, as these courses did not take place.
Now Hahnemann considered turning to studying young people and in this way to building a circle of pupils. Accordingly at the beginning an academic position. At the faculty meeting on February of the Leipzig University) and accordingly on the tenth of the month he was informed by the Dean of he decision that he would receive permission to hold lectures after the defense of a dissertation and the payment or 50 talers. On june 26, Hahnemann held his habitation address and on September 29, 1812, delivered his first lecture.
His habitation dissertation “De Helleborism veterum” discusses the question as to what plant the ancient writers understood by “Helleborus.” Hahnemann sought to prove that it was concerned with veratrum album,a plant which he had already designated as one of the most useful medical plants in his work “On a New Principle.” The work indicates extensive reading and cites numerous references from the German, FRench, Italian, English, Latin, Greek and Arabic writings. N word concerning homoeopathy is contained in this writing.
From the winter semester 1812-1813 to the winter semester 1820-1821, Hahnemann was active as an academic teacher and during this time, and apart from reading his doctrine on the basis of the Organon, he also held lectures on the history of medicine.
Hahnemanns appearance as an academic teacher was, however, not particularly successful since through certain habits he excited the laughter of the students , who at first appeared in hosts in his lectures. Dressed in the finest clothes, he appeared in the lecture room in a pondering way and in every the same stiff, intoning dignity; it seems this manner was due to the presentation of he doctrine in public, for otherwise he was simple and natural. In the course of the lecture, however, dignity would be lost, and he would go into a passion against the existing school.
Through this sharp attitude naturally the relation with respect to the other members of the faculty was not improved and later this actually became harmful. His pupils also suffered from it.
Even though the result of his lectures was not extensive, to which the fear his pupils must have had of obtaining a bad reputation with the other teachers also contributed, still there collected around him a smaller contributed, still their collected around him a smaller group of students which made a more closely knit group for Hahnemann. Giving and taking was reciprocal in this group; thereby the students learned the new doctrine exactly in interchange of speech and then from the pupils Hahnemann obtained drug provers for his investigations. Of these first pupils whose names often appear also in the proving I mention Ernst Stapf,. Gustaf Wilhelm Gross, Franx Hartmann, C.G.Francz, Hornburg, Ruckert, Wislicenus and Langhammer, of whom especially the first three later played a particularly definite role in the movement.
